The Baptism of John

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 3, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 26.

The Baptism of John.

THERE has been much questioning in regard to the relation of John's baptism to the gospel,—whether or not it was gospel baptism. Our opinion is, that there is not so much difference between the baptism of John and that of the disciples of Jesus as is generally supposed.

Speaking of "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," Mark commences with the baptism of John, and the proclamation of John was identical with the first proclamation of Jesus. John said, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. The Saviour's first preaching was this: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. John said he preached the baptism of repentance, and faith in him that was to come, that was, Christ. The first sermon after the resurrection of Christ was of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus. It appears that the whole period from the beginning of the preaching of John until the time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles, about three and a half years after the death of Christ, was one of transition from one dispensation to the full establishing of the other. The two dispensations were for a time interwoven, as the following will show.

Jesus and his apostles preached the gospel, and their baptism was certainly gospel baptism. But Jesus, when he healed a certain person, commanded him to show himself to the priests and to offer the offering required by the law of Moses. And thus he recognized the validity of that law of the Levitical dispensation at that time. And the apostles were not permitted to preach to the Gentiles, even after the death of Christ, until they had offered the gospel to the Jews, or until the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 were fulfilled. Yet the New Testament was ratified by the death of Christ, Heb. 9:15-17, and the rites of the Levitical law were taken out of the way by his death, being nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14.

It may be asked how baptism can commemorate the resurrection of Christ if it began to be observed before his death. If we consider the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, we shall find certain facts in regard to its origin which will help to solve this difficulty. This ordinance commemorates the breaking of Christ's body, and the shedding of his blood. No one doubts that it is the memorial of the death of Christ. But it was observed for the first time before the death of Christ. Jesus said of the bread, "This is my body, which is broken for you," though it was certainly given in anticipation of the breaking of his body, and the shedding of his blood.

The ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, though designed to commemorate the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, were first, by divine authority, observed in anticipation of those events, and as expressing the faith of the disciples that those events should actually take place. But from that time to the present, they have been observed in memory of these events.

Acts 19 does not afford so clear proof that they who were baptized unto John's baptism were again baptized by the apostles as has been supposed by many. This was an unusual case, according to the record. On being questioned by Paul they said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." They had not been baptized by John, but by Apollos, who was converted at Ephesus a short time before the visit of Paul. Though this was twenty-five years after the resurrection of Christ, Apollos knew only the baptism of John, and baptized just as John had administered the ordinance, unto a belief in a Messiah who was yet to come. That they were unacquainted with the facts concerning Christ, and the fulfillment of John's predictions of Christ's work, is evident from their answer to Paul, "We have not even heard whether the Holy Spirit is given." (Anderson's translation.) It was an error on the part of Apollos to teach the people that Christ was yet to come, when he had already died and was risen from the dead. This error of Apollos was corrected when Aquila and Priscilla expounded to him the way of God more perfectly.

Those who were baptized by John in the faith of a coming Messiah, did not need to be baptized again when they accepted him. But those who were baptized in the faith of a coming Messiah after he had died and risen from the dead, needed to be baptized again, inasmuch as their first baptism was nearer to a denial of him who had come, than of a belief in him. It every way seems just and fitting that Paul should commence with them as novices.

But this instance does present satisfactory proof that it is right to re-baptize those who have not met the requirements of the gospel rite in their first baptism. Intimately connected with this subject is